Tire Pressured

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Corbett

Its amazingly stupid to point out how amazingly stupid Obama's ideas are for solving the energy crisis. Everyone already knows that properly maintaining their cars help save on fuel economy. However, most of us ALREADY DO THAT, thus its not really a solution to the current situation! Try to keep up.

Except that most of us DON'T already do that, hence the issue. Try to keep up.

If you dont already check your tire pressure, then you are just a moron who probably SHOULD vote for Obama. But good luck getting gad prices lowered with that strategy.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Corbett

Its amazingly stupid to point out how amazingly stupid Obama's ideas are for solving the energy crisis. Everyone already knows that properly maintaining their cars help save on fuel economy. However, most of us ALREADY DO THAT, thus its not really a solution to the current situation! Try to keep up.

Except that most of us DON'T already do that, hence the issue. Try to keep up.

If you dont already check your tire pressure, then you are just a moron who probably SHOULD vote for Obama. But good luck getting gad prices lowered with that strategy.

Are you being deliberately stupid? The Department of Transportation said that 60-80% of cars on the road have under-inflated tires in 2001 and there is little reason to believe that number is much different today. So, I guess Obama should be cruising to a crushing victory then eh? hahaha.

As I already said, Obama wasn't looking to solve our energy problem with inflating tires. He made the comparison to show how pathetic McCain's drilling plan was. It's not like you care though, you're so blinded by partisan rage that it simply doesn't matter what Obama says or does. Added onto that is the fact that you aren't smart enough to articulate an alternative point of view or diligent enough to actually research your positions before you open your fat mouth.

And so we get posts like these last few of yours.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Corbett

Its amazingly stupid to point out how amazingly stupid Obama's ideas are for solving the energy crisis. Everyone already knows that properly maintaining their cars help save on fuel economy. However, most of us ALREADY DO THAT, thus its not really a solution to the current situation! Try to keep up.

Except that most of us DON'T already do that, hence the issue. Try to keep up.

If you dont already check your tire pressure, then you are just a moron who probably SHOULD vote for Obama. But good luck getting gad prices lowered with that strategy.

Are you being deliberately stupid? The Department of Transportation said that 60-80% of cars on the road have under-inflated tires in 2001 and there is little reason to believe that number is much different today. So, I guess Obama should be cruising to a crushing victory then eh? hahaha.

As I already said, Obama wasn't looking to solve our energy problem with inflating tires. He made the comparison to show how pathetic McCain's drilling plan was. It's not like you care though, you're so blinded by partisan rage that it simply doesn't matter what Obama says or does. Added onto that is the fact that you aren't smart enough to articulate an alternative point of view or diligent enough to actually research your positions before you open your fat mouth.

And so we get posts like these last few of yours.

If anyone here is a partisan hack its yourself. You see, you have a consistent record here of defending every pathetic policy Obama holds, inlcuding the "Dont drill, inflate" policy you defend here.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Yeah out-dumb or out-partisan because I'm not mesmerized by a presidential contender preaching common sense, sorry unlike you sheep I'm looking for a little bit more out of a president.
I'm not mesmerized by it either, but I understand the point he was making, as well as the way it is being dishonestly twisted by McCain. The real problem is sheep like you who are mesmerized by such vacuous slime and by gimmicks like expanded drilling instead of seeking serious, realistic solutions to the challenges in front of us.


Now get off the computer you using up valuable energy.
Likewise, get off of the planet you [sic] using up valuable oxygen.

What solutions?

Inflating your tires and releasing oil from the strategic oil reserve, duh!!

With solutions like this he will go far in the Democratic party.

 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Corbett

Its amazingly stupid to point out how amazingly stupid Obama's ideas are for solving the energy crisis. Everyone already knows that properly maintaining their cars help save on fuel economy. However, most of us ALREADY DO THAT, thus its not really a solution to the current situation! Try to keep up.

Except that most of us DON'T already do that, hence the issue. Try to keep up.

If you dont already check your tire pressure, then you are just a moron who probably SHOULD vote for Obama. But good luck getting gad prices lowered with that strategy.

Are you being deliberately stupid? The Department of Transportation said that 60-80% of cars on the road have under-inflated tires in 2001 and there is little reason to believe that number is much different today. So, I guess Obama should be cruising to a crushing victory then eh? hahaha.

As I already said, Obama wasn't looking to solve our energy problem with inflating tires. He made the comparison to show how pathetic McCain's drilling plan was. It's not like you care though, you're so blinded by partisan rage that it simply doesn't matter what Obama says or does. Added onto that is the fact that you aren't smart enough to articulate an alternative point of view or diligent enough to actually research your positions before you open your fat mouth.

And so we get posts like these last few of yours.

If anyone here is a partisan hack its yourself. You see, you have a consistent record here of defending every pathetic policy Obama holds, inlcuding the "Dont drill, inflate" policy you defend here.


QFT
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Corbett

If anyone here is a partisan hack its yourself. You see, you have a consistent record here of defending every pathetic policy Obama holds, inlcuding the "Dont drill, inflate" policy you defend here.

Except that I don't. The fact that you believe that just shows you spend as little time reading other people's posts here as you do researching the issues before you make your own.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Corbett

If anyone here is a partisan hack its yourself. You see, you have a consistent record here of defending every pathetic policy Obama holds, inlcuding the "Dont drill, inflate" policy you defend here.

Except that I don't. The fact that you believe that just shows you spend as little time reading other people's posts here as you do researching the issues before you make your own.

Feel free to post links
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Corbett

If anyone here is a partisan hack its yourself. You see, you have a consistent record here of defending every pathetic policy Obama holds, inlcuding the "Dont drill, inflate" policy you defend here.

Except that I don't. The fact that you believe that just shows you spend as little time reading other people's posts here as you do researching the issues before you make your own.

Feel free to post links

Here you go.

The search here sucks, or I would post more. I also slammed him about his flip flop on FISA, which if you've been reading anything I've been writing over the last few years you would know that it is one of my most important issues, and one he sold out on. (I feel I have to mention this because it seems obvious at this point that you don't read very well)

So, are apologies in order? What I'm going to predict is that you'll declare my post inadequate Obama hating and pretend nothing happened.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Corbett

If anyone here is a partisan hack its yourself. You see, you have a consistent record here of defending every pathetic policy Obama holds, inlcuding the "Dont drill, inflate" policy you defend here.

Except that I don't. The fact that you believe that just shows you spend as little time reading other people's posts here as you do researching the issues before you make your own.

Feel free to post links

Here you go.

The search here sucks, or I would post more. I also slammed him about his flip flop on FISA, which if you've been reading anything I've been writing over the last few years you would know that it is one of my most important issues, and one he sold out on. (I feel I have to mention this because it seems obvious at this point that you don't read very well)

So, are apologies in order? What I'm going to predict is that you'll declare my post inadequate Obama hating and pretend nothing happened.

One post! Congratulations! I take back the part of you defending EVERY policy Obama supports. You defend ALMOST ALL of the policies he holds.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Corbett

If anyone here is a partisan hack its yourself. You see, you have a consistent record here of defending every pathetic policy Obama holds, inlcuding the "Dont drill, inflate" policy you defend here.

Except that I don't. The fact that you believe that just shows you spend as little time reading other people's posts here as you do researching the issues before you make your own.

Feel free to post links

Here you go.

The search here sucks, or I would post more. I also slammed him about his flip flop on FISA, which if you've been reading anything I've been writing over the last few years you would know that it is one of my most important issues, and one he sold out on. (I feel I have to mention this because it seems obvious at this point that you don't read very well)

So, are apologies in order? What I'm going to predict is that you'll declare my post inadequate Obama hating and pretend nothing happened.

One post! Congratulations! I take back the part of you defending EVERY policy Obama supports. You defend ALMOST ALL of the policies he holds.

Wow, your reply was shocking now wasn't it?

You're pathetic.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Corbett

If anyone here is a partisan hack its yourself. You see, you have a consistent record here of defending every pathetic policy Obama holds, inlcuding the "Dont drill, inflate" policy you defend here.

Except that I don't. The fact that you believe that just shows you spend as little time reading other people's posts here as you do researching the issues before you make your own.

Feel free to post links

Here you go.

The search here sucks, or I would post more. I also slammed him about his flip flop on FISA, which if you've been reading anything I've been writing over the last few years you would know that it is one of my most important issues, and one he sold out on. (I feel I have to mention this because it seems obvious at this point that you don't read very well)

So, are apologies in order? What I'm going to predict is that you'll declare my post inadequate Obama hating and pretend nothing happened.


You are such a dumbass even in that post your defending what he did

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I understand the move tactically (he would be a fool to give it up)


 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Corbett

If anyone here is a partisan hack its yourself. You see, you have a consistent record here of defending every pathetic policy Obama holds, inlcuding the "Dont drill, inflate" policy you defend here.

Except that I don't. The fact that you believe that just shows you spend as little time reading other people's posts here as you do researching the issues before you make your own.

Feel free to post links

Here you go.

The search here sucks, or I would post more. I also slammed him about his flip flop on FISA, which if you've been reading anything I've been writing over the last few years you would know that it is one of my most important issues, and one he sold out on. (I feel I have to mention this because it seems obvious at this point that you don't read very well)

So, are apologies in order? What I'm going to predict is that you'll declare my post inadequate Obama hating and pretend nothing happened.


You are such a dumbass even in that post your defending what he did

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I understand the move tactically (he would be a fool to give it up)

Since you are too dishonest to quote my entire post, I'll do it for you.

I think he was foolish for making the commitment to public financing in the first place. It is certainly a knock against him that now that he finds himself with an overwhelming financial advantage that he's backing away from the promise. I understand the move tactically (he would be a fool to give it up), but it's certainly bad for him to go back on his pledge.

You think that is a post defending someone? This explains a lot about you.

/facepalm
 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
I think checking your tires and tune ups are a great idea. The problem is Obama added that this would take care of any need to drill which it won't. Obama is in the pockets of the tree huggers this is why he won't drill. He would rather see the working class suffer than go against his tree hugger special interest groups.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Corbett

If anyone here is a partisan hack its yourself. You see, you have a consistent record here of defending every pathetic policy Obama holds, inlcuding the "Dont drill, inflate" policy you defend here.

Except that I don't. The fact that you believe that just shows you spend as little time reading other people's posts here as you do researching the issues before you make your own.

Feel free to post links

Here you go.

The search here sucks, or I would post more. I also slammed him about his flip flop on FISA, which if you've been reading anything I've been writing over the last few years you would know that it is one of my most important issues, and one he sold out on. (I feel I have to mention this because it seems obvious at this point that you don't read very well)

So, are apologies in order? What I'm going to predict is that you'll declare my post inadequate Obama hating and pretend nothing happened.


You are such a dumbass even in that post your defending what he did

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I understand the move tactically (he would be a fool to give it up)

Since you are too dishonest to quote my entire post, I'll do it for you.

I think he was foolish for making the commitment to public financing in the first place. It is certainly a knock against him that now that he finds himself with an overwhelming financial advantage that he's backing away from the promise. I understand the move tactically (he would be a fool to give it up), but it's certainly bad for him to go back on his pledge.

You think that is a post defending someone? This explains a lot about you.

/facepalm

That is you defending him, and I wouldn't expect anything less.

You are such a joke!

 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I think he was foolish for making the commitment to public financing in the first place. It is certainly a knock against him that now that he finds himself with an overwhelming financial advantage that he's backing away from the promise. I understand the move tactically (he would be a fool to give it up), but it's certainly bad for him to go back on his pledge.

You think that is a post defending someone? This explains a lot about you.

/facepalm

That is you defending him, and I wouldn't expect anything less.

You are such a joke!

Let's do a little objective analysis. Eskimospy said:

He was foolish.
It is a knock against him.
It's bad for him to go back on his pledge.

I understand the move tactically.

So Eskimospy wrote three negative things about Obama, but said he understands. By what standard are you claiming that Eskimospy's post DEFENDS Obama?

By comparison:

Bush lied.
Bush cherry-picked.
Bush is stupid and intellectually lazy.

I understand that Bush truly believed Saddam was a hugely dangerous threat to the U.S., so that he felt the ends justified the means.

Now, have I just "defended" Bush?

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: shira

Let's do a little objective analysis. Eskimospy said:

He was foolish.
It is a knock against him.
It's bad for him to go back on his pledge.

I understand the move tactically.

So Eskimospy wrote three negative things about Obama, but said he understands. By what standard are you claiming that Eskimospy's post DEFENDS Obama?

By comparison:

Bush lied.
Bush cherry-picked.
Bush is stupid and intellectually lazy.

I understand that Bush truly believed Saddam was a hugely dangerous threat to the U.S., so that he felt the ends justified the means.

Now, have I just "defended" Bush?

There's no point. I feel like I'm arguing with 12 year olds. (and sadly enough, I might be!) If they can't understand the difference between understanding something on a tactical scale and actually approving of the conduct, what else is there to say? Not that I really believe that for a second. I'm sure they understand the difference very well, they just don't care because they aren't actually trying to have an honest discussion.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Do you think that a "find more to use" policy is better than a "use less of what we have and save the rest" policy?

That is what is appears to be coming down to. Many people want to drill more so that it will be cheaper and we can go on about our blissful, ignorant ways instead of realizing that this is a finite resource and the less we drill and the less that we use today....the longer it will last us into the future.
The drop in demand from the United States and other developed countries will not make up for the continual increase in demand from India, China, and other developing countries.

High fuel prices are killing the economy right now and future demand will keep it high. Securing more supply of not only oil but natural gas as well (that's being blocked by the OCS ban as well) will help secure reasonable prices that won't drag the economy down until we reach a point to where our dependence on oil is negligible.

There are other things we should be doing as well such as :
- getting rid of the ethanol mandate which increases price and reduces fuel efficiency while increasing the price of food
- come up with one, maybe two or three, gas blends for the entire nation instead of the hodge podge of a couple of dozen of blends that artificially restricts supply regionally and increases price.
The immediate problem with expanded drilling is it does essentially nothing to relieve high prices today. It will be several years at a minimum before the new oil supplies reach the market.

The mid-term problem with expanded drilling is it will be a drop in the bucket. The amount of additional oil it will eventually add to our oil supply would help, but only to about the same extent as simple conservation measures like properly-inflated tires and well-tuned engines. That was Obama's point. Moreover, conservation measures can begin helping immediately, unlike expanded drilling.

The long-term problem with expanding drilling is it encourages our addiction to oil. That is a dead-end. Oil is a finite resource. Oil prices will continue their painful rise as demand increases and supplies inevitably start decreasing. The only long-term solution is for the United States to move away from oil as aggressively as it can. Expanded drilling is a feel-good gimmick that serves only to distract Americans from committing to actions that really matter, expensive measures like a major investment in alternative energy, hard measures like changing our wasteful lifestyles ... and simple conservation measures like tire pressure and tune-ups.

Our need for oil is never going to go away. There are too many non-energy needs that will be far tougher to replace. As oil supplies dwindle over the next century, those other uses for oil will become far more pressing than gasoline. When that day comes and oil is $10K a barrel, wouldn't it be nice to have untapped stockpiles right off of our coast? Let's not squander them today just so people can get two or three more years out of their SUVs.
As BassBomb points out, this thread has drifted way off-topic. Would any of the McCain supporters or people who are pro-expanded drilling care to address my thoughts above, explain what I'm missing?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
1. Is a moot point imo. Alternative energy wont produce anything worthwhile for decades either but we should still try to develop them.

2. ANWR is 1.5 Million barrels a day. Nobody truely knows the OCS but estimates have it being as high as 1.5 million or more barrels a day once fully developed. I'd be surprised if tire pressure will contribue a drop in 3.0 million barrels a day. Either way it could add as much as 50% more domestic production on top of our current 5.1 million barrels a day.

And that is neither here nor there as hybrids and cross over vehicles will make their way onto the market over the course of time further and produce results far above anything tire pressure related. That is also only considering those sources. Shale oil in the rockies could produce a lot more oil.

3. There is no "addiction" anymore than we are addicted to energy in general. Our economy is based on oil so expanding supplies for that requirement only helps the economy. Expanding oil serves to help reduce the effect of foreign oil. It isnt a magic bullet and never will be. But it is really silly to think sititng on those reserves really serves this country in its best interest. Drilling for oil produces high paying jobs, provides revenues generated from leases, and helps to reduce the need to rely on crackpot regimes and area's of the world that are unstable which sends us headlong into wars to protect that energy supply. There is little coincidence we have had two major wars in the ME in the last 15 years. Expect more as we rely more and more on foreign supplies of oil.

Above all I ask you why cant we do both? Why is it always an all or nothing approach with the left on this issue? Drill and develop an alternative energy source. I think it is pretty pathetic that Paris Hilton can figure it out but many Obama supporters cant.
 

evident

Lifer
Apr 5, 2005
12,014
626
126
McC admits to not knowing how to use a computer- how is he going to make sound legislation on bills such as net neutrality and other laws re: technology?

Now he mocks people who inflate their tires? isnt there some statistic that says many accidents are caused by underinflated tires? what's this guy's problem? and why do people even support him?
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: evident
McC admits to not knowing how to use a computer- how is he going to make sound legislation on bills such as net neutrality and other laws re: technology?

Presidents don't write legislation. That's the job of Congress.

BTW, McCain's position on Net Neutrality is that he doesn't believe the government should get involved unless there's a clear restraint of competition.

Now he mocks people who inflate their tires? isnt there some statistic that says many accidents are caused by underinflated tires? what's this guy's problem? and why do people even support him?

He wasn't mocking people who underinflate their tires. He was mocking Obama.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: evident
McC admits to not knowing how to use a computer- how is he going to make sound legislation on bills such as net neutrality and other laws re: technology?

Presidents don't write legislation. That's the job of Congress.

BTW, McCain's position on Net Neutrality is that he doesn't believe the government should get involved unless there's a clear restraint of competition.

Now he mocks people who inflate their tires? isnt there some statistic that says many accidents are caused by underinflated tires? what's this guy's problem? and why do people even support him?

He wasn't mocking people who underinflate their tires. He was mocking Obama.

Presidents have a huge... huge amount of influence into how legislation is written.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: evident
McC admits to not knowing how to use a computer- how is he going to make sound legislation on bills such as net neutrality and other laws re: technology?

Presidents don't write legislation. That's the job of Congress.

BTW, McCain's position on Net Neutrality is that he doesn't believe the government should get involved unless there's a clear restraint of competition.

Now he mocks people who inflate their tires? isnt there some statistic that says many accidents are caused by underinflated tires? what's this guy's problem? and why do people even support him?

He wasn't mocking people who underinflate their tires. He was mocking Obama.

Presidents have a huge... huge amount of influence into how legislation is written.

Not saying they don't but their influence is tempered greatly by Congress unless they get bi-partisan support or one party has a solid majority.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
The immediate problem with expanded drilling is it does essentially nothing to relieve high prices today. It will be several years at a minimum before the new oil supplies reach the market.
Oil prices are not only influenced by today's supply & demand, but projected S&D.

Also, some of the known offshore deposits can start producing fairly soon.


The mid-term problem with expanded drilling is it will be a drop in the bucket. The amount of additional oil it will eventually add to our oil supply would help, but only to about the same extent as simple conservation measures like properly-inflated tires and well-tuned engines. That was Obama's point. Moreover, conservation measures can begin helping immediately, unlike expanded drilling.

I disagree with the "drop in a bucket" line of spin. ANWAR is estimated to have about 16BB, and there might be considerably more. The current ban on driling also means no exploration, you gotta drill to really explore.

The easter costal area is now estimated to 86,5 BB.

The government report Pelsoi & friends are quoting conservativey quotes a figure of an additional 18BB?



The long-term problem with expanding drilling is it encourages our addiction to oil. That is a dead-end. Oil is a finite resource. Oil prices will continue their painful rise as demand increases and supplies inevitably start decreasing. The only long-term solution is for the United States to move away from oil as aggressively as it can. Expanded drilling is a feel-good gimmick that serves only to distract Americans from committing to actions that really matter, expensive measures like a major investment in alternative energy, hard measures like changing our wasteful lifestyles ... and simple conservation measures like tire pressure and tune-ups.

Expanded drilling is only part of the solution, anybody just wanting to drill is a stupid as anybody just wanting to conserve or only focus on alt energy. Need to do all now.

ANWAR alone at 16BB represents $1.6 Trillion of revenue (at $100 per B), the US government receives on average 40% of the revenue. That's about $600 Billion of government revenue that could be invested in alt tech or pay down our deficit.


Our need for oil is never going to go away. There are too many non-energy needs that will be far tougher to replace. As oil supplies dwindle over the next century, those other uses for oil will become far more pressing than gasoline. When that day comes and oil is $10K a barrel, wouldn't it be nice to have untapped stockpiles right off of our coast? Let's not squander them today just so people can get two or three more years out of their SUVs.

$10K a barrel? Silly, that won't happen for too many reasons to list here.

Edit: And BTW, we will likely NEVER run out of oil. Those deposits that are not commercially feasible now even at $140 a barrel can always be tapped for more.

See bolded

Fern
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
The mid-term problem with expanded drilling is it will be a drop in the bucket. The amount of additional oil it will eventually add to our oil supply would help, but only to about the same extent as simple conservation measures like properly-inflated tires and well-tuned engines. That was Obama's point. Moreover, conservation measures can begin helping immediately, unlike expanded drilling.

I disagree with the "drop in a bucket" line of spin. ANWAR is estimated to have about 16BB, and there might be considerably more. The current ban on driling also means no exploration, you gotta drill to really explore.

The easter costal area is now estimated to 86,5 BB.

The government report Pelsoi & friends are quoting conservativey quotes a figure of an additional 18BB?

See bolded

Fern

And that doesn't even include Oil Shale which is estimated at over 1 trillion barrels of oil. We've blocked development for that as well.